Robin Berjon wrote:
> Also, I've been out of the loop but I haven't seen a very strong push
> from the Membership to enforce radical stability in XML. I would expect
> anyone with a strong demonstrable stake in stringent immutability to
> track editions and make themselves known (even if through public
> feedback). So far I've heard complaints, but not with examples of
> applications that would indeed fall over.
>
(Sticking my hand up)
XOM will fall over.
In fact, John Cowan just found a weird corner case reported by an end
user where XOM already falls over as a result of an incompatible change
made in the definition of a system identifier between the 2nd and 3rd
editions of XML 1.0. :-(
--
Elliotte